Indian triumph

Originally posted by @philokalia
I just fail to see how you do not understand the efforts to have morality discussed in terms of not some like... mangerial "legality" questions.

I haven't used the word "managerial". Laws and moral standards sometimes overlap, but not always.

Originally posted by @philokalia
If they are consenting adults, they can be doing something immoral nonetheless!

I don't think so.

Originally posted by @philokalia
Of course, the thread is about a law that passed in India; and so that is a legal discussion. But you are asking me why it is immoral form a secular perspective, right?

Yes, and, as you know, I don't think homosexuality is immoral, in and of itself. So I certainly welcome the fact that it is no longer illegal where I live and in the country where I come from, and elsewhere - and now in India too.

Originally posted by @philokalia
Even if something should not be explicitly illegal (getting drunk 4-5 nights a week), it makes sense that we collectively view such actions as immoral and undesirable.

If you find doing that "undesirable", then don't do it. If drunk people engage in immoral acts that are detrimental to the people around them then that's bad, of course. I don't see getting drunk as being immoral.

Originally posted by @fmf
The first couple of times we discussed it in depth - and we discussed adultery too, I remember - I was quite interested in discussing it with you. That's why I did. But I'm not interested in discussing it with you anymore. My reasons for believing paedophilia and bestiality have not changed at all since those discussions. You'll have to make do with that.

I see you are now in a conundrum because logically your arguments for believing homosexuality is not immoral would mean you have to believe bestiality is also not immoral (if you use the same logic) which you don't so you're in a real pickle.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
I see you are now in a conundrum because logically your arguments for believing homosexuality is not immoral would mean you have to believe bestiality is also not immoral which you don't so you're in a real pickle.

No. I don't "have to believe bestiality is not immoral". As you know full well. We discussed it before. My stance hasn't changed. If you're interested in other people's stances on it, start a thread about it. I don't believe paedophilia is not immoral either. Start a thread about that too if you want.

Originally posted by @fmf
No. I don't "have to believe bestiality is not immoral". As you know full well. We discussed it before. My stance hasn't changed. If you're interested in other people's stances on it, start a thread about it. I don't believe paedophilia is not immoral either. Start a thread about that too if you want.

Obviously you don't have to have logical arguments either you are allowed to contradict yourself at every turn and run away from discussions that expose your total lack of coherence as you are doing yet again.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Obviously you don't have to have logical arguments either you are allowed to contradict yourself at every turn and run away from discussions that expose your total lack of coherence as you are doing yet again.

My stance hasn't changed. We delved into the immorality of bestiality and paedophilia twice. Refer back to that.

Originally posted by @fmf
My stance hasn't changed. We delved into the immorality of bestiality and paedophilia twice. Refer back to that.

I believe your stance on lying hasn’t changed either right?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
I believe your stance on lying hasn’t changed either right?

Lying is morally unsound.

Originally posted by @fmf
Lying is morally unsound.

And when it suits you?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
And when it suits you?

Lying to protect one's family from danger or harm from immoral acts is morally sound, I believe. Lying when one is being coerced in an immoral way is morally sound. Lies to spare someone's feelings where the resulting delay in them finding out the truth is inconsequential or even beneficial. There was a whole thread about it.

Originally posted by @fmf
Lying to protect one's family from danger or harm from immoral acts is morally sound, I believe. Lying when one is being coerced in an immoral way is morally sound. Lies to spare someone's feelings where the resulting delay in them finding out the truth is inconsequential or even beneficial. There was a whole thread about it.

So why would you repeat what you have said before about lying but can’t seem to repeat what you have supposedly said about Zoophilia? No further questions your honor.

Originally posted by @fmf
Lying to protect one's family from danger or harm from immoral acts is morally sound, I believe. Lying when one is being coerced in an immoral way is morally sound. Lies to spare someone's feelings where the resulting delay in them finding out the truth is inconsequential or even beneficial. There was a whole thread about it.

How about when you and tiger lied about puffing cigarettes behind the gym at Shetland Primary? Wasn’t that wrong?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
So why would you repeat what you have said before about lying but can’t seem to repeat what you have supposedly said about Zoophilia? No further questions your honor.

Because I wanted to repeat myself about lying. But over the issue of paedophilia and bestiality, I am demonstrating my contempt for you.